Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Bull shit Jake. That's something you could eventually argue had the tribunal been set up last year. But after 16 years of the tribunal's work, taking the convictions is perfectly legitimate. Look at Seselj, he's been in jail for 6 years, with no exit date in view... and is without a conviction and even without a trial (it's been indefinitely adjourned)! Where would you put him?

It's perfectly plausible to say that the outstanding cases will follow the same pattern as those already finished. Unless you have some inside information that there is an army of Croats and Albanians in the dock waiting to be convicted.

by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:14:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
vladimir:
Unless you have some inside information that there is an army of Croats and Albanians in the dock waiting to be convicted.
Bull shit vladimir, by your own data there are 6 Croats whose trial is "ongoing" (and 2 have been transferred to national courts) vs. 9 (+8) Serbs. So there are proportionally more Croatian cases outstanding than Serb.

Regarding Kosovo, it is a well-known fact that when the number of people in a category drops below about 5, statistical tests become insufficiently powerful. In the case of Kosovo the expected numbers are small enough you can't really draw any conclusions.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:23:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bull shit migeru ;)

That's a ratio of 8 Croats : 17 Serbs.
Croatian population= 4,5 M
Serbian population= 8 M (not counting Kosovo Albanians)

by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:44:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
it looks even
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:45:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You don't compare to the population, you compare to the number of indictments in which the ratio is closer to 3:1 than to 2:1.

You are beginning to appear disingenuous. You keep moving the goalposts.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:47:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My fault.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:54:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But even with 3:1... we're in the same ball park. It's not going to change your end result by very much.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:55:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Look, I'll be the first to argue that keeping people locked up for decades without trial is a monstrous travesty of justice. I'd argue that Adolf fucking Hitler should be released if you couldn't convict him after five years. But there are a couple of points here that you fail to account for:

  1. Not all the cases started at the same time, because some of the indictees were better at evading capture than others.

  2. You can reasonably expect (at least to first order) that the ratio between convictions and acquittals hold up - so you could use the figure [convictions*(1 + ongoing/acquittals)] if you wanted to. But using just convictions remains nonsense.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 06:26:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You know, you really shouldn't be making even an implicit comparison between Seselj and Hitler.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 01:25:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, even better than convicted, we could use the severity of the conviction (number of years sentenced to prison). But that's also something that would take time to compile. Really, all the other indicators can be politically charged - including for example, convicted and then released 1 year later.

The cases outstanding only favour the Croats and this by a very small margin. So I'd still go with the convicted indicator.

by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 01:41:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Remember that the more variables you throw into your model the least significant are the results.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 01:47:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
vladimir:
The cases outstanding only favour the Croats and this by a very small margin. So I'd still go with the convicted indicator.
Are you cherry-picking your indicators?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 01:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why are you insinuating that? I'm just reacting to Jake's comment about me being mean spirited (which I really didn't appreciate) and explaining why I think the convicted indicator is best.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 01:51:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My being mean spirited because I chose the 'convicted' indicator and not the 'acquitted indicator' which in his opinion was much better.
by vladimir on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 01:52:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You misunderstand the use of "mean-spirited". Focus on this instead
Compare indictments, or break down the indictments into convictions, acquittals and outstanding cases, if you like to. But using only convictions is nonsense as long as there are cases outstanding.


Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 01:55:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
First, it's the comparison that I call mean spirited, not you - apologies if that wasn't clear.

Second, I'm not arguing that you should use acquittals - I'm arguing that you should use [convictions*(1 + ongoing/acquittals)], which, unlike convictions, would make sense... kind of.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Mar 16th, 2009 at 02:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series